small sq baler input HP

[jimg]

</font><font color="blue" class="small">( Strokes per bale is used to keep a uniform bale. If you just run the baler as fast as you can stuff hay in it you will have bales of vastly different lengths. So if you want 15 strokes per bale you just keep an eye on things and if the hay thins out you speed up. If the hay gets thicker you slow down to maintain the same strokes per bale.

I had a spring clip break on my TN somewhere in the pto system. When it broke it took all power away from the pto so while the pto would spin and could start the discbine it couldn't provide any force and when the cutter bogged down it died. I have no idea why it broke but I think it had more to do with the fact I run a 575 baler behind that tractor and there is a lot of shock on the system. )</font>

I see I didnt know this...thanx I learned something.

OK about the breakage BUT isnt the clutch supposed to gard against this very situation?

 

[Robert_in_NY]

I do not know the exact spot that the spring clip broke but it is just a 30 cent piece of metal. I will say that the 575 is a tough baler and it will eat hay like crazy. The shock is still going to affect the clutch some and the fact the pto would still work but had no power would lead me to believe the spring clip was tied in with the clutch some how and that is why the pto lost its power under load.

Needless to say I am setting up the 7710 to take over all the haying duties (except raking and tedding) but the TN will also remained set up to run my baler in case of emergencies.

 

[rebuilder]

I can tell you that that running an old A-C 303 baler with an even older 861 Ford tractor, there can be plenty of push and shove if the hay is heavy. The old Ford has plenty of power (broke my share of shear bolts on the baler), but it can get to be a rough ride.

 

[jimg]

This is good info to know...I was thinking about a TN to go w/ a 575. I believe Ill try at the higher end. I dont think there should be a problem w/ that? Just curious if replacing the part required extensive tear-down or was it something close to the surface?

 

[jimg]

OK, Ill keep that in mind...it seems to be the common chord that having a big tractor is best. As I said Im thinking about putting a TN w/ a NH575 but thought Id also look into JD balers as well b/c of their good reputation...which lead to this thread.

 

[rambler]

I'm not bothered by a thing you said here, just for the record. /forums/images/graemlins/smile.gif

Your core question, why similar balers have lower hp requirements from one manufaturer, is a good one.

The one thing we haven't discovered is - are they of similar through-put? Probably the strokes per minute may be the closest we can get to figuring that. 'Stroke per bale' depends on how fast you are feeding the windrow in, how big the windrow is, and how long you set the bale - a very easy to manipulate number, and not worth comparing. 'Strokes per minute' would tell you something that would compare one machine to another - not perfectly, but as close as we can get from just numbers.

On this farm, an IHC 300 tractor ( 1955 35 hp, 5 speed plus hi/lo) & a 270 NH baler have made 2000- 6000 bales a year for 40+ years, almost all with a 125 bale hayrack or more reciently a bale basket behind it. Very, very few parts have gone into that baler over the years. That combo has been baling for about as many years as I am old. I can go to the dealer & get parts off the shelf. It would be real hard for me to look for a different baler. /forums/images/graemlins/smile.gif The 270 is one of the last slower style balers, newer models are really the same basic mechanics, speeded and/or beefed up a bit for more through-put. (I'm trying to explain any color bias, if I have any, with this paragraph, so you can judge my views honestly.....)

The slip clutch on a baler doesn't really enter into things too often. For me anyhow. More so for start-up shock loads, once in operation at speed, it really doesn't break loose ever.

Many compact style Ford/ NH tractors - and I believe Kubota as well - have warnings not to use a square baler with them, voids the drivetrain warrenty.

The plunger drive shaft is what needs the power. So the JD flywheel runs on the plunger driveshaft. Meanwhile, the pto shaft is where all the power comes into the baler - which is where NH put their flywheel. I think either works fine. The NH flywheel will rotate at pto speed. The JD flywheel likely rotates at the plunger speed - whatever that is. Which is better - probably not a big diff? A faster flywheel can be smaller, but both will store the same energy. Not sure which is smaller or faster, etc. Don't know that it makes a difference? Anyhow, either flywheel position will be using a gearbox to change the pto shaft 90 degrees to run the plunger driveshaft, so gear losses are going to be similar.

Locally in my part of southern MN NH balers are about 2-1 favorites to JD.

Between my personal experience, and seeing a lot of NH balers being pulled by Green tractors, I would lean that way. but, JD makes a good small square baler as well, & would not be scared of one.

In general, other things being equal, a heavier implement is a better one. If I were looking at 2 balers and felt they were about equal for my needs - the heavier of the 2 I would consider to be built tougher & longer lasting. This is very ture of round balers, and somewhat small squares.... This would not be my only selling point, but if it gets down to details - heaver is better.

HP ratings from the manufaturer - I wouldn't look at a second time. Of no concern to me. For a smaller older baler (NH 271 or older; JD T14/T24) you can get by with 28 hp, want 35 or more - as well as lots of gears, and a live pto. For a newer higher capacity baler, you want 50 hp, probably a bit more would be good. Just based on past experience & looking at the neighbors. (In my head, all tractor hp ratings are in pto hp rating only - I don't bother with engine or drawbar hp, by the way.)

The JD reply to the email - did not address balers, but tractors, so it leaves me puzzled!

It would seem a TN tractor is a utility class, and should be robust enough to run a baler. Guess I'd think the TN 60 is a little light hp for a modern baler, so I'd go with a TN 70 or 80 - but depends on other needs, and just idle 2 minute speculation on my part. /forums/images/graemlins/smile.gif The -80 would be better for loader work, the -70 is probably a bit more efficient for wide open work, if you have such concerns.

--->Paul

 

[jgh]

20060320

If no one from NH replies, I have the email address for their service manager, based in Winston-Salem, for this area. John started with Sperry New Holland many years ago and is good on technical issues as are raised here.

J

 

[Robert_in_NY]

I wasn't around when they worked on it but I don't think it was too bad as it was only a $300+ repair bill.

I asked the JD rep to try and explain why JD requires so much less hp and here is my question followed by his reply

</font><font color="blue" class="small">( Hi, first off thanks for answering my e-mail so fast on a Sunday no less. I guess I am just not sure how John Deere justifies their minimum requirements for their balers. I can't see a 3720 or a 4120 running a 348 without failing. And I know they won't be able to handle that baler with an ejector and a wagon on a hill. So does John Deere just list the minimum amount of hp to run the baler or what? I have always been told weight is just as important if not more so then hp when it comes to running a small square baler and yet I do not see any mention of a minimum weight on the John Deere site.

I do not mean to bash John Deere in any sense but the question of why JD balers require so much less hp then the NH balers was brought up on a message board and more or less it can be confusing to people who are unfamiliar with balers but want to buy one. The last thing I would want to see as I am sure you are the same is to see someone get hurt because they have a tractor that meets the pto hp ratings of the baler but they have no where near enough weight to properly handle it. Does that make sense? Thanks again for your fast reply as it showed you do care about your products and service and I do appreciate it. Take care.

Robert Turk Jr.
)</font>

</font><font color="blue" class="small">( You're correct. It's certainly a minimum (35 PTO with 540 PTO). As I suspect you know, the speed at which you bale as well as the crop conditions, density and volume are all key factors. I personally would not recommend using a 4120 or 3720 to bale. However, if a person were in no hurry and only did an occasional bale, you could get by? Certainly not for a person that make lot of bales or a commercial hay producer. I would use nothing less than a 4720 and maybe not even them. Probably like to see a 5000 Series Utility Tractor used with with a baler such as a 328, 338 or 348. A 5000 Series with far less than 75 hp would be just fine.



Please understand that we do not market equipment or parts directly to customers. Virtually everything we sell is through our network of dealers worldwide. Therefore, your John Deere dealer is your best source for product information as well as parts & services. They have the knowledge, training, experience and resources to help and advise you.



Wade Malcolm
)</font>

So from my interpretation of his reply, John Deere list just the bare minimum to run their balers while I am going to assume NH list the minimum to run their balers efficiently. But I do not know of any company that builds a 35pto hp Utility tractor anymore. The smallest are in the 40 pto hp range now.

As for wanting a 575, they are good balers but if you do not have a tractor yet and are going to buy one to run the baler I would not get anything smaller then a TL-A. I have ran one on my 575 and it handles the baler so much better then the TN.

 

[Robert_in_NY]

I will let you know if I hear back from NH.

 

[jimg]

Hi Paul,
Cool...I really meant no disrespect to you and appreciate it that you took the time to answer. Thanx!!! Causing a fight was the last thing I wanted to happen or cause.

Yes, I was looking at strokes/min to roughly figure what the baler was capable of but wasnt sure what else would figure in. If you look over both sets of specs youll see (in that regard) theyre either identical or very close. OTOH its odd how one line can appear to need so much less HP than the other.

>> a very easy to manipulate number, and not worth
>>comparing.
OK...but as I said before what benefit would either company gain by doing so? It seems like a great way to lose otherwise loyal customers (both current and future). Its clear that both companies have a good rep in regard to balers. So, Im assuming neither has done something unwise and manipulated data in order to mislead.

As to your experience w/ the NH baler: thats an extremely good track record for sure. Are there any JD balers of similar size in your area and have you compared how well they perform? BTW how many bales do make at one time and how long does it take? How many acres? Grass, legumes or both? Is hay your main business or is it mostly for your own use?

Also, just to be clear I DONT want to use a baler w/ a compact tractor. Ive been thru that head knocking here already. NH, in their baler sales blurb, makes it clear HP *and* weight determine tractor spec and no compact would really apply.

>>The plunger drive shaft is what needs the power. So the JD
>>flywheel runs on the plunger driveshaft. Meanwhile, the pto
>>shaft is where all the power comes into the baler - which is
>>where NH put their flywheel. I think either works fine. The NH
>>flywheel will rotate at pto speed. The JD flywheel likely
>>rotates at the plunger speed - whatever that is.
Once you go thru the sheetmetal balers are a black box to me and I have only a vague idea of how it all works in detail. I should really figure that out a bit b/c what youre saying above is making me draw blanks. I thought the PTO inputs were directly connected to the plunger but Im not seeing how the JD flywheel setup works. Thats naother thread though....

>> Which is better - probably not a big diff? A faster flywheel
>>can be smaller, but both will store the same energy. Not sure
>> which is smaller or faster, etc. Don't know that it makes a
>>difference?
This is why I really wished an ag/mech engineer would show up and talk about some of the issues involved and design compromises made and why...those sorts of details. Even though I might not understand immediately I could always study it and eventually understand.

>>Locally in my part of southern MN NH balers are about 2-1 >>favorites to JD.
OK, so you do have JD balers in your area...Ive personally never seen one. Everywhere Ive lived its been only NH. As above, how do they perform? Do you know?

As for weight...Im of a different mind but do understand your pt.. Lighter can be better as long as its well engineered. Whats hard to determine is whether its well engineered or just an ecomomy model. I suppose this is a big part of what Id like to know. Has JD done something different and interesting in the engineering of their balers that they can be so much lighter and req less HP. Ive seen some pretty amazing bits of mechanical/structural engineering using new technics/processes which hold up at least as well as older heavier designs.

>>The JD reply to the email - did not address balers, but >>tractors, so it leaves me puzzled!
It appeared to me to start out talking about balers then morph into tractors. It was enough to make me wish for more details.

Yes, I was thinking about the upper end of the TN class...Im also thinking about using a small disc mower conditioner w/ it and will need the extra power.